All the talk about the Canon 1Dx vs the D4/s , and referring to one as "king" is just silly. These are cameras made for professionals that use their system of lenses. Talking about "Canon Camp" just sounds like geek fanboys with lots of disposable income that graduated from arguing over Marvel vs DC and Xbox vs Playstation.

You're right, it's silly to argue, because clearly Canon, Marvel and Playstation are the best.

The only comparison that would be hard for me is Warner Bros vs Disney (Looney Tunes vs. Mickey, Donald, etc)

There's a £400 off special offer on the D1X from one UK retailer until Saturday. Nikon did this with the D4.....I wonder......?

I wonder if £400 makes any big difference in stopping people from jumping ship (from Canon to Nikon) ... I mean people who buy such an expensive camera usually have bag full of L glass and assuming if Nikon did come up with a superior camera, I don't think people with that kind of investment would jump ship ... and I don't think £400 discount will make any difference in such a scenario.

To those who say "Canon is not innovative," can now boast of Nikon innovation with ISO 409600. I do not know what use it but the marketing arrange one.

That's what caught my eye, too, and as someone who uses ISO 102400 on my 5DIII all the time, I might have to sell all of my Canon gear to get the D4S. I think it will really help with my upcoming series - Coal Mines by Matchlight. If I accidentally run into some methane, this might be my last post

There's a £400 off special offer on the D1X from one UK retailer until Saturday. Nikon did this with the D4.....I wonder......?

I wonder if £400 makes any big difference in stopping people from jumping ship (from Canon to Nikon) ... I mean people who buy such an expensive camera usually have bag full of L glass and assuming if Nikon did come up with a superior camera, I don't think people with that kind of investment would jump ship ... and I don't think £400 discount will make any difference in such a scenario.

I totally agree. What I was getting at was that many UK dealers were offering £400 trade in against the D4, just before the D4S was outed by Nikon so I wondered if this was something to confirm that an announcement was coming in March.

The D4s is an upgrade from the D4.. I think enough for people to sell their D4 to get the D4s. But I must say/agree that the 1Dx is still on top. I never doubted that the 1Dx was lacking and it shows that Nikon isn't up to snuff with Canon's flagship. But I'm really wondering what the ISO capabilities are.. a new sensor! not from the D4 and Df! 400k is RIDICULOUS. Doubt that'll be flattering but 100k iso?? or even 50k iso might be really good. and DR.

The D4s is an upgrade from the D4.. I think enough for people to sell their D4 to get the D4s. But I must say/agree that the 1Dx is still on top. I never doubted that the 1Dx was lacking and it shows that Nikon isn't up to snuff with Canon's flagship. But I'm really wondering what the ISO capabilities are.. a new sensor! not from the D4 and Df! 400k is RIDICULOUS. Doubt that'll be flattering but 100k iso?? or even 50k iso might be really good. and DR.

We will have to see RAW comparisons. Plus, the max native ISO of 1Dx is 50K and D4s' is 25K...

The D4s is an upgrade from the D4.. I think enough for people to sell their D4 to get the D4s. But I must say/agree that the 1Dx is still on top. I never doubted that the 1Dx was lacking and it shows that Nikon isn't up to snuff with Canon's flagship. But I'm really wondering what the ISO capabilities are.. a new sensor! not from the D4 and Df! 400k is RIDICULOUS. Doubt that'll be flattering but 100k iso?? or even 50k iso might be really good. and DR.

We will have to see RAW comparisons. Plus, the max native ISO of 1Dx is 50K and D4s' is 25K...

I can provide RAW comparisons between the 1DX and D4 if anyone is interested.

As a person who owns both, I find the Nikon to be far superior in terms of noise performance at high ISO settings and focus tracking during high speed bursts, among other things.

The fact that Nikon improved ISO performance and auto focus should be putting Canon under pressure but unfortunately, the 1DX looks better on paper, and that's what most people seem to care about more than anything.

I seem to be in the minority of people who still get excited by increasing maximum ISO speeds. But can someone explain, why/how is it possible that the difference between maximum base ISO (25600) and extended is 4 stops, whereas in Canon cameras (the 1DX/5D3 at least) it is just 2? Does it make a practical difference? Is it just another means of notating it? In my experience (300D->50D->5D3) the highest usable ISO is 1 stop below maximum base ISO (depending on what you're using it for). So extra extended settings would be irrelevant. Is Nikon different?

They could extend it 100 stops if they want. Big question is... how useable / how noisy is it?

Just because the camera says it can do 409600 ISO does not mean you would be happy with it. Until we see what it looks like at these high ISO, only then can we judge what is useable.

From what I have seen out of the 1Dx, some of the high ISO images are actually quite good.

Would be interesting to see if the Nikon can capture anything close to this at 25600

That kind of backs up my rule of thumb, being shot 1 stop below the maximum native ISO (although for that sort of shot, more noise is probably acceptable than a bird portrait, for instance).